bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
To paraphrase Chairman Mao: "Old system for old citizen. New system for new citizen"....except it's a Ponzi scheme. Problemo...RogerT said:
NA-The New Social Security Plan
- Thread starter PaSkyhawk
- Start date
2042 (+/-3) is the "magic" year when the system goes bankrupt. But that is only the paper based number. It is the time frame when the "trust fund" will be exhausted.
A much more real number is 2018 (+/-3). That is the time when the SS contributions will not equal the payments and the balance must be made up from the "Trust fund". But since the "trust fund" is actually IOUs, the cashing in of that must be made up from other government income. (You think we got a deficit now!)
The actual real number is 2008(+3-1). That is the time when the real total government income will no longer equal the outgo by "borrowing" from the "trust fund".
Any attempt to "fix" it by juggling the tax or benefit is an exercise in futility. We are about to be bitten by the world's biggest ponzi scheme.
A much more real number is 2018 (+/-3). That is the time when the SS contributions will not equal the payments and the balance must be made up from the "Trust fund". But since the "trust fund" is actually IOUs, the cashing in of that must be made up from other government income. (You think we got a deficit now!)
The actual real number is 2008(+3-1). That is the time when the real total government income will no longer equal the outgo by "borrowing" from the "trust fund".
Any attempt to "fix" it by juggling the tax or benefit is an exercise in futility. We are about to be bitten by the world's biggest ponzi scheme.
Bo nailed it to the wall, right there.
If you don't like the President's proposal, OK, suggest something different.
but any "proposal" which is predicated upon the current scheme is doomed to failure because, most fundamentally, the "trust fund" is illusory. Is not there. And we are very near the point at which sucking any further money from the productive stream (i.e., higher payroll taxes) will destroy productivity and innovation.
If you don't like the President's proposal, OK, suggest something different.
but any "proposal" which is predicated upon the current scheme is doomed to failure because, most fundamentally, the "trust fund" is illusory. Is not there. And we are very near the point at which sucking any further money from the productive stream (i.e., higher payroll taxes) will destroy productivity and innovation.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
Brian Austin said:HEY! Bureaucrats are people, too, dammit!
I said bureacracy not bureaucrats. I am not putting down government workers. Many are hard working and necessary. Gov't does have a role, just not in every facet of our lives. The efficiency of funding gov't programs, like SS are very low. A small percentage of the dollars we contribute in taxes actually does something meaningful.
I'd rather manage my own money or have a pro do it than the gov't.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
SCCutler said:
Which points up the bigger problem. Without SS to borrow from, the Federal deficit will be much worse. And we do have both parties to blame for the current level of spending.
Politicians. Blech.
wbarnhill
Final Approach
Brian Austin said:
Illegal immigration, like it or not, is actually necessary to our economy. We discussed this a couple of times in our Labor Economics course this year. The cheap labor provided by the workers, provides a capital boost to the employer, plus the taxes placed upon the wages of the illegal workers helps to boost income into the US Treasury, including Social Security.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7091FFC345B0C768CDDAD0894DD404482
Thus why you'll never find a president who will honestly try to stop illegal immigration altogether.
As for the social security thing, I've listened to the republicans (or since people are invoking the "extremist" term, the far-right) discuss these private accounts. With a number of safety nets in place (which will increase the cost of implementation drastically), I could see voluntary accounts as a possibility. The key thing is that the SS fund needs to be used SOLELY for Social Security. But is anyone in Congress willing to vote to prohibit themselves from dipping into the fund? Gresham Barratt (as well as a fellow from the SSA and a fellow from FreedomWorks) spoke at Lander University on the topic and even he didn't try using numbers that Bo used. The fact is that Social Security will be able to pay 100% until 2042, then 70% for years after that, with a continuing decline. As I said, with the proper safety nets in place, voluntary accounts could work. The main problem is that when you start pulling money away from Social Security (which is what you would do when you allow people to not pay the full amount into it from their paycheck), the only way you can pay full benefits to the same point in time (2042) is to either cut benefits, raise taxes, or spend even more money to implement the 'fix', which Bush and co. seem to think they won't have to do. Furthermore, there will end up being a period of time where people "fall through the cracks" where there is not enough money to pay benefits, before the private accounts can take the full effect. What then? Yes, more money, coming from taxes or running more huge deficits (of course, this administration has not been averse to doing so anyway). If the republicans want to be viewed seriously on this topic, they need to start coming forward with real numbers, and all the facts about the effects of the private accounts. I also urge people to go to one of these town hall meetings and grill the people speaking. They're there to convince you that this is the right idea. Make sure you don't just accept everything they say without asking questions. I'm not against private accounts, but there is a problem with any radical change to the system, and the republicans are simply ignoring any negatives to the change.
I just realized I keep saying safety nets. Let me explain what I mean. The idea behind the private accounts is that the money you put into the account will be from you, for you. When people retire with the accounts, those with the high incomes will receive massive amounts, with lower incomes receiving pennies in comparison. I understand if you put that money in there, you should be allowed to get it. The problem is that lower wage workers will not have the money necessary to survive from the private accounts, and because money has been removed from Social Security by the higher income workers, the benefits from SS will be limited. The safety net that I spoke of was something such as if an individual pays the full 4% into their PRA, and still does not meet a minimum X amount, the government will fill in that extra amount. Thus when the person retires, they are not living off of scraps due to the fact they worked a low wage job during their life. This and other various items should be addressed to ensure that any change will not adversely affect anyone in the spectrum, young, old, rich, or poor.
On a slightly related note... Bush said that since Congress got retirement accounts, he thought "If it's good for Congress, it's good for the people"... Congress also gets free health care. So I should expect the GOP to be rolling out a socialized health care plan based upon the great DC healthcare my senators receive, right? *smirk*
Brian Austin
En-Route
Uhm, most illegal immigrants around here are paid under the table, in cash. How does that end up helping SS since they aren't paying into it?wbarnhill said:
Illegal immigration is not necessary for cheap labor. Give the current illegals a migrant worker permit, charge reduced taxes in return for playing fair (ie income taxes but no SS/FICA) and let them come across the border without killing themselves in the desert or getting US killed with the coyote gun battles up and down I-10 last year (yes, it did happen).
Most illegals stay here for 6-9 months and go back to Mexico for a while, according to someone's poll around here. I'm all for letting them work since I've seen better jobs out of them then some "Americans". Just do it LEGALLY.
Oh, and one argument that's tossed out right now is then we'll have to pay them minimum wage. Going rate around here, according to a contractor I know, is $7-10/hr, depending on skills. He's got a concrete guy that he pays $15/hr that's from Mexico. Spanish is a required language if you're a contractor around here.
wbarnhill
Final Approach
The employer still has to pay the employee's SS. Otherwise there'd be a massive discrepancy on the employer's end. Employer claims they paid X amount to the employees, and therefore X amount is the amount paid to the SS. Thus, even though the illegals are paid in cash, the employer still has to cover his tracks in W-2 forms.
Brian Austin
En-Route
Uh, sure. This is the real world, not what SHOULD be happening.wbarnhill said:
Under the table means no records. Or it's listed in their accounts as a 1099, which exempts them from any tax withdrawals since it's a subcontractor and not an employee. The 1099 route is worse, actually, since subs use their SS# typically. If it's fake (which it usually is), it ends up being an issue for some 16 year old girl in Minnesota who's SS# happens to match.
wbarnhill
Final Approach
Brian Austin said:
I was just explaining why you won't see the government take a severe stance against illegal immigrants.
And yes, this is the real world. And in this real world, illegal immigrants are actually helping the economy (including Social Security). But of course, that's just what PhDs in Economics are saying.
Brian Austin
En-Route
I guess I'd trust a real world contractor who deals with this stuff everyday over a PhD in whatever who sits in an office with no concept of how things are really done...in the real world.wbarnhill said:
Education isn't always related to a piece of paper. I'll take experience over education any day.
corjulo
Line Up and Wait
Brian Austin said:
What do you mean?
The PhD's in economics have been telling us for YEARS that illegal workers was an essential component of our economy. Both the Keynesians and the supply siders agree on this point. Its the politicians who exploit the truth, on both sides of the isle.
poadeleted3
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 2,055
wbarnhill said:
That's what radical left wing PhD in economics are saying. No honest economist will make the claim that illegal immigrants are helping social security. They are, in fact, a demonstrable drag on social security, medicare, welfare, and every other social safety net we've set up.
wbarnhill said:
The 2042 date is based on the paper value of the "trust fund" assets. The 2008 date is based on cash flow. The trust fund is not cash! The IOUs therein cannot be used to back up checks issued to the retired.
In 2018, the SSA will have to start redeeming those IOUs for cash and the government has no cash coming that can be used to do that.
Even worse, in 2008, the net cash flow of the government will start to go negative and it can no longer rob Peter to pay Paul. It must at that time either begin shedding obligations or raising taxes.
Now what?
James_Dean
Pattern Altitude
Brian Austin said:
I vote Brian for POTUS
Brian Austin
En-Route
I never argued the fact that CHEAP WORKERS weren't essential to our economy. There should be a difference between cheap workers and illegal immigrants, however.corjulo said:
And you took my PhD comment out of context. I was referring to the fact that illegals make significant contributions to SS, not that cheap labor.
And it's "aisle" not "isle" in that context.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Joe Williams said:
Some of the right wing guys in South Texas will make the claim that the illegals are necessary for the economy. I suspect that's why Bush has the position he does. Most of the illegals down here shun the social safety net for fear of getting caught. And some of them work a LOT harder that US Citizens do....
wbarnhill
Final Approach
Um... Joe's been throwing this "radical left wing" statement over and over and over again... So I must ask...
Can you provide some proof that these economists are just left wing propoganda machines? I mean as much as I'd love to just believe you outright, the overuse of the phrase kinda diminishes credibility.
Furthermore, could you kindly provide some data to show that the illegals are such a drag on the nation? I mean I just provided a nice article which spoke of the fact that illegals are pumping 7 billion dollars yearly into Social Security. I'll gladly find more if you'd like, but I'd love to see something that shows data supporting your belief.
Can you provide some proof that these economists are just left wing propoganda machines? I mean as much as I'd love to just believe you outright, the overuse of the phrase kinda diminishes credibility.
Furthermore, could you kindly provide some data to show that the illegals are such a drag on the nation? I mean I just provided a nice article which spoke of the fact that illegals are pumping 7 billion dollars yearly into Social Security. I'll gladly find more if you'd like, but I'd love to see something that shows data supporting your belief.
Brian Austin
En-Route
You're seeing this from a national perspective while we live it as a local issue here in AZ. Here's some food for thought:wbarnhill said:
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0501azmarijuana01.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/centralphoenix/articles/0422ext-mexmoney0422Z4.html
Now where are you SS dollars going?
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/1210mexbenefits10.html
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special09/articles/1004sat1-04.html
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0415stolencars.html
This initiative (later known as Prop 200) was passed here in AZ by an overwhelming majority...but the liberal court system has either put it on hold or killed it altogether. Voice of the people? Silenced!
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special12/articles/0215Initiative15.html
Interesting. I could support a Democrat on this one...
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0324wiredmoney24.html
wbarnhill
Final Approach
I must state that I am not saying that I disagree with you that the border needs to be locked down, but I am saying that it will not be done due to certain rammifications. That's why I'm playing devil's advocate here. Onto the quote.
Article 1 speaks primarily about drug traffickers and how they're going through the same holes that illegals are going through. If you want to get into a discussion about drug trafficking, I'm all for nailing shut every hole we find.
Article 2 speaks about remittances sent home by Mexican emigrants (notice that's not focusing on illegals, that's focusing on all Mexicans in the US). There's one sentence in that article speaking about illegals, stating that some non-governmental groups have stated that the rise in remittances is only due to a rise in illegal immigration. No proof, no data, just a blind statement from a group that's not even named.
Next...
Article 1 talks about a possible agreement from... 2003? Yeah. Anyhow, the agreement discusses a possible accord with Mexico which would basically be like the accords that the US has with 20 other countries (mainly in Europe). Furthermore, the Mexican citizen would need to prove that they paid into the system. With any cash under the table route (like you spoke of), how would they do that? So you have nothing to worry about according to your own statement.
Right about now, after the first three articles, I'm beginning to think you searched on azcentral.com for "illegal immigrants" and just copied every link you found without reading through them. I hope this isn't the case, but I'll continue my points anyway.
Article 2 (another from 2003) speaks about how smugglers are getting rich off of the illegal immigrants because we put tighter security on the borders. Exactly what did this have to do with the discussion?
#3 is from 2004, getting more recent... Once again talking about smugglers. Lock up holes to make it more difficult to get in, smugglers charge more, smugglers steal more cars, smugglers make tons of money. Refer to my statement on Article 2.
#4 - Proposition 200 deals with state and local welfare programs in Arizona, and is completely ineffective when dealing with federal services. Your overwhelming majority was 56%. According to what I've been reading on it, the proposition was allowed to become law in December 2004, was appealed for an injunction in January to the 9th circuit court who rejected the appeal (How very liberal of them!), and the only thing left is the 9th Circuit is to rule on the constitutionality of it within a the next few months. So how were the people silenced?
Finally, #5 discusses wire transfers to Mexico. Why single out those specific transfers? What if a family has a child visiting Mexico for school and would like to wire money to their child? You're going to tax them as well? Or are you simply going to focus on illegal immigrants? If so, how are you going to make sure they're illegal immigrants before imposing the tax? The idea is so ridiculously biased it should never see the light of day.
I'm sorry, but these articles do nothing to further your position.. They all seem to make it look like you would be unhappy even with LEGAL immigration (Specifically the second, third, and last article dealing with remittances or wire transfers). I know you want to focus on illegal immigrants, but those specific decisions would affect anyone from Mexico, legal or not.
Brian Austin said:
Article 1 speaks primarily about drug traffickers and how they're going through the same holes that illegals are going through. If you want to get into a discussion about drug trafficking, I'm all for nailing shut every hole we find.
Article 2 speaks about remittances sent home by Mexican emigrants (notice that's not focusing on illegals, that's focusing on all Mexicans in the US). There's one sentence in that article speaking about illegals, stating that some non-governmental groups have stated that the rise in remittances is only due to a rise in illegal immigration. No proof, no data, just a blind statement from a group that's not even named.
Next...
Article 1 talks about a possible agreement from... 2003? Yeah. Anyhow, the agreement discusses a possible accord with Mexico which would basically be like the accords that the US has with 20 other countries (mainly in Europe). Furthermore, the Mexican citizen would need to prove that they paid into the system. With any cash under the table route (like you spoke of), how would they do that? So you have nothing to worry about according to your own statement.
Right about now, after the first three articles, I'm beginning to think you searched on azcentral.com for "illegal immigrants" and just copied every link you found without reading through them. I hope this isn't the case, but I'll continue my points anyway.
Article 2 (another from 2003) speaks about how smugglers are getting rich off of the illegal immigrants because we put tighter security on the borders. Exactly what did this have to do with the discussion?
#3 is from 2004, getting more recent... Once again talking about smugglers. Lock up holes to make it more difficult to get in, smugglers charge more, smugglers steal more cars, smugglers make tons of money. Refer to my statement on Article 2.
#4 - Proposition 200 deals with state and local welfare programs in Arizona, and is completely ineffective when dealing with federal services. Your overwhelming majority was 56%. According to what I've been reading on it, the proposition was allowed to become law in December 2004, was appealed for an injunction in January to the 9th circuit court who rejected the appeal (How very liberal of them!), and the only thing left is the 9th Circuit is to rule on the constitutionality of it within a the next few months. So how were the people silenced?
Finally, #5 discusses wire transfers to Mexico. Why single out those specific transfers? What if a family has a child visiting Mexico for school and would like to wire money to their child? You're going to tax them as well? Or are you simply going to focus on illegal immigrants? If so, how are you going to make sure they're illegal immigrants before imposing the tax? The idea is so ridiculously biased it should never see the light of day.
I'm sorry, but these articles do nothing to further your position.. They all seem to make it look like you would be unhappy even with LEGAL immigration (Specifically the second, third, and last article dealing with remittances or wire transfers). I know you want to focus on illegal immigrants, but those specific decisions would affect anyone from Mexico, legal or not.
Brian Austin
En-Route
Like the slant on the articles? AZ Republic is a very liberal newspaper here in Phoenix. The West's version of the NY Times.
Try this instead. While a admittedly conservative viewpoint, accurate nonetheless:
http://www.azanderson.org/
Try this instead. While a admittedly conservative viewpoint, accurate nonetheless:
http://www.azanderson.org/
Joe Williams said:
That's basically because the fund was missused, raped and raided for many years, and probably still is. Missappropriation....
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
And therein lies Business' distrust of government. The Dems say you are risking a sure thing. The Repubs say if you don't have your own assets the government can take it away- merely legislate a reduced benefit.Henning said:
The sad reality is that there is no sure thing, either way. Even if you don't legislate a reduced benefit, if we can't have sensible trade and monetary policy, the dollar will be worth about a dinar in five years. Now that's something.